Ran it through several testes, only one flagged a few sentences as AI, including the one you mention. Fair enough, it's unlikely that English is the (turkish in this case?) author's first language and a little AI help can't hurt here.
I learned a great lesson for a gamedev youtuber this summer: Use AI to give you a summary what you have to implement, what functions you'll need, what edge case you missed and then write it yourself. Putting this into practice helps me to refine the ticket I'm working on. With the last ticket I had to persuade the AI (Atlassian's Rovo in my case) that a new data model wasn't necessary and we can do it more elegantly with less code.
Many of us still have to figure out how AI fits into our workflow, letting it do all the work isn't it but asking AI to point you towards the goal and let it review/refine your work sounds a lot more acceptable to me.
Bad writing makes the reader stop thinking about what you wanted to convey. As unintuitive as it is for most people in this forum, AI writing smell is as bad as bad grammar. Doesn't matter how you get rid of it. Maybe even more AI can clean those up, but those unintuitive phrases that pop up in AI writing are going to be a hindrance for many people who would love for the focus to be on what they're presenting, not the sloppy way they've written it up
It sounds to me like you want to censor perfectly fine phrasing just because AI rolled the dice to use it. Let's not forget that AI learned to "speak" from people in the first place.
Not to mention that as people shift their phrasing to avoid being accused of using AI, the AI will keep evolving, training on the new phrasing and then adopting it, too.
I understand the language evolves, but evolving language just to sound different from AI feels like wasting effort better spent elsewhere. On actual substance of the message for example.
One can still suspect that something might not have been uttered through some AI assistance. There might even be still some living humans outside, who knows.
Yeah its getting annoying how people discuss endlessly how some text is AI or not... like some extra imaginative points are awarded to those who spot the most. People seem to keep getting triggered by little insignificant things in the text.
LLMs average human writing thats out there, its not making up new expressions or language constructs so just move on if you (anybody) can and put that little obsessive pedantic part of you behind you.
I couldn't care less, why be a prick and not just enjoy & discuss the content, not this ultra focus on the form. If content is crap then thats another story altogether. I wish there would be some plugin/feature to just block those rather empty subthreads.
That's just how low-brow use of LLMs destroys the last remnants of trust on the web. Anything and everything could be an LLM's hallucination, even if it isn't. Still, the deluge of LLM-generated slop is a fact. Just ask GitHub.
Not really, and also they do not vary their writing like humans would. Human writers do not repeat the same pattern over and over as much as LLMs do. They'd get bored of their own writing.
People as a whole are always going to be sick of whichever affectation current popular LLMs have, since they'd be reading a fair bit of that. As a writer you should steer clear of things that would elicit groans in a contemporary audience. Faulting your audience for having averse reactions to overused phrasing is pointless.
Interesting. I agree that it seems that LLMs are wont to fall into recognisable patterns much more readily than humans however I asked a model to evaluate your comment history and it found loads of patterns such as:
“I’m not sure…” / “I don’t…” hedges before disagreement
Negation followed by correction/reframing is a recurring structure: essentially “It’s not X, it’s Y”.
And dozens of other examples. I wonder if LLMs really are more liable for it or if it simply seems that way purely because when you use a model it's almost as if you're speaking to the same "person". I think that human language is naturally formed by common agreed meanings of words first, and then phrases.
I once asked an LLM to do something and it also came up with some nonsense. Luckily I spent about 15 seconds reflecting and then I didn't post it on HN, because people come here to talk to other people, and not argue with LLM output.
Any given person will have phrases or ways of organizing things that they tend towards. But that isn't the same thing. Those patterns are the exception with lots of variance all around them. LLMs lack the same general variance while also going beyond merely favoring a few patterns to the point where you could describe it more as a production line stamping them out. They're also remarkably inefficient with their prose. I think I'm pretty bad on a first pass (see this comment I'm typing right now) but they put me to shame by a huge margin.
> I asked a model to evaluate your comment history and it found loads of patterns such as
> “I’m not sure…” / “I don’t…” hedges before disagreement Negation followed by correction/reframing is a recurring structure: essentially “It’s not X, it’s Y”.
I did a manual human dig through GP's profile and I don't see any evidence supporting this. The literal strings "I'm not sure" and "I don't" do appear a lot (also in replies, which I'm hoping your LLM was intelligent enough to exclude?), and they are used to hedge before making a statement, but not a single one of them even approaches the "It's not X, it's Y" thing your LLM has claimed they do.
Your LLM did not find dozens of examples, it told you it did and you didn't even bother to check.
What you wrote becomes completely incorrect if non-native speaker picks up the pen (like half of folks here, including me). Then you can easily start seeing this stuff and having these... non-smart reactions to manually written comments.
> As a writer you should steer clear of things that would elicit groans in a contemporary audience and "LLM prose" is just the latest addition.
Nope, thats you and your own self-pressures to adhere and conform to imaginary critical crowd, don't push it nor expect it form others. Its not a really happy way to live like that, is it. Maybe a warm fuzzy feeling when being in similar crowd, just pointing out that crowd may be more vocal but its actually pretty small.
Its really just some form of OCD/anxiety, unhealthy competitiveness, with a pinch of pettiness (as you write you completely reject any form of more moderate or tolerant approach or understanding how wrong in your assumptions you may be). You do you, just don't expect much respect for the n-th same comment on x-th article.
For sure. If you write with a casual conversational tone people don't get triggered. But if you are eloquent and use an extended vocabulary thanks to large amounts of reading then that seems to make people think you're using AI.
As someone who loves to read (well, on and off) I wonder what the median vocabulary is and how I and other readers compare. I guess language has always been functional for most people.
> the "IDunno" of archeology - "It most likely served ritual and cultural purposes"
If all you know about archeology is from daytime television and clickbait articles, all you know about history is what you vaguely remember from school, you never met anybody working in those fields and actually don't even have a passing interest to engage with the subject, then yes, you might actually believe that's how it works.
Remember, when it was "dig" even if it is destructive. Now its scan, map- return when the scanners get better, read scrolls of ash via scanner. We are 10 years away from a "Do not disturb ground" sign on every suspected digsite.
Worst thing is that because the smell is bad and you called it out, too comments are all about the smell vs the substance. I contribute, sadly. Maybe we should all be more judicious with when we say there's a smell, save that for when it's really rank? Like a polite thing. Yeah it stinks but maybe it's worth something beyond that. Not sure if this is the one, just thinking out loud.
I imagine they've done some tweaking before publishing (also appears the rock substrate has flaked off), was hoping to be able to pull some more detail out of the images with a vibe coded decorrelation stretch app I made from a post last week:
I'm giving a talk this Sunday at KDE's Akademy conference of our use of KDE software in research at the Great Pyramid, if anyone's curious. It's a short talk slot and I cannot go very deeply into detail, to keep expectations low, but you can see cool photos of robots.
How are things like that, that were preserved (I'm assuming) by the dry sand they were buried under, then gets preserved by archaeologist for the future?
A lot of pigments react to oxygen, and the sandy winds must not be kind to this kind stuff so I'm curious.
I know they've had to close Lascaux to the public for example.
They often aren't, sadly. You typically cannot encase and climate-control an entire site, so authorities will have to make a call on whether they can provide monitoring and preservation, or just re-bury it all. A lot of stuff in Italy is analysed without even unearthing it, because once you do that, the clock starts ticking.
Great finding, i am always amazed by such archaeological treasures. But -unrelated- i was overwhelmed by the number of ads in the page until i saw some actual pictures from the tomb.
35 comments
[ 0.22 ms ] story [ 17.4 ms ] threadOne thing I'm not so glad to see is one paragraph that starts with this sentence:
"The distinction is important. Archaeological maps..."
That "The distinction is important" smells like AI writing... but maybe we all just have to accept that now?
I learned a great lesson for a gamedev youtuber this summer: Use AI to give you a summary what you have to implement, what functions you'll need, what edge case you missed and then write it yourself. Putting this into practice helps me to refine the ticket I'm working on. With the last ticket I had to persuade the AI (Atlassian's Rovo in my case) that a new data model wasn't necessary and we can do it more elegantly with less code.
Many of us still have to figure out how AI fits into our workflow, letting it do all the work isn't it but asking AI to point you towards the goal and let it review/refine your work sounds a lot more acceptable to me.
Wrong wrong wrong.
Bad writing makes the reader stop thinking about what you wanted to convey. As unintuitive as it is for most people in this forum, AI writing smell is as bad as bad grammar. Doesn't matter how you get rid of it. Maybe even more AI can clean those up, but those unintuitive phrases that pop up in AI writing are going to be a hindrance for many people who would love for the focus to be on what they're presenting, not the sloppy way they've written it up
It sounds to me like you want to censor perfectly fine phrasing just because AI rolled the dice to use it. Let's not forget that AI learned to "speak" from people in the first place.
Not to mention that as people shift their phrasing to avoid being accused of using AI, the AI will keep evolving, training on the new phrasing and then adopting it, too.
I understand the language evolves, but evolving language just to sound different from AI feels like wasting effort better spent elsewhere. On actual substance of the message for example.
teehee
I am not affiliated with pangram.
LLMs average human writing thats out there, its not making up new expressions or language constructs so just move on if you (anybody) can and put that little obsessive pedantic part of you behind you.
I couldn't care less, why be a prick and not just enjoy & discuss the content, not this ultra focus on the form. If content is crap then thats another story altogether. I wish there would be some plugin/feature to just block those rather empty subthreads.
Not really, and also they do not vary their writing like humans would. Human writers do not repeat the same pattern over and over as much as LLMs do. They'd get bored of their own writing.
People as a whole are always going to be sick of whichever affectation current popular LLMs have, since they'd be reading a fair bit of that. As a writer you should steer clear of things that would elicit groans in a contemporary audience. Faulting your audience for having averse reactions to overused phrasing is pointless.
“I’m not sure…” / “I don’t…” hedges before disagreement Negation followed by correction/reframing is a recurring structure: essentially “It’s not X, it’s Y”.
And dozens of other examples. I wonder if LLMs really are more liable for it or if it simply seems that way purely because when you use a model it's almost as if you're speaking to the same "person". I think that human language is naturally formed by common agreed meanings of words first, and then phrases.
> “I’m not sure…” / “I don’t…” hedges before disagreement Negation followed by correction/reframing is a recurring structure: essentially “It’s not X, it’s Y”.
I did a manual human dig through GP's profile and I don't see any evidence supporting this. The literal strings "I'm not sure" and "I don't" do appear a lot (also in replies, which I'm hoping your LLM was intelligent enough to exclude?), and they are used to hedge before making a statement, but not a single one of them even approaches the "It's not X, it's Y" thing your LLM has claimed they do.
Your LLM did not find dozens of examples, it told you it did and you didn't even bother to check.
> As a writer you should steer clear of things that would elicit groans in a contemporary audience and "LLM prose" is just the latest addition.
Nope, thats you and your own self-pressures to adhere and conform to imaginary critical crowd, don't push it nor expect it form others. Its not a really happy way to live like that, is it. Maybe a warm fuzzy feeling when being in similar crowd, just pointing out that crowd may be more vocal but its actually pretty small.
Its really just some form of OCD/anxiety, unhealthy competitiveness, with a pinch of pettiness (as you write you completely reject any form of more moderate or tolerant approach or understanding how wrong in your assumptions you may be). You do you, just don't expect much respect for the n-th same comment on x-th article.
As someone who loves to read (well, on and off) I wonder what the median vocabulary is and how I and other readers compare. I guess language has always been functional for most people.
If all you know about archeology is from daytime television and clickbait articles, all you know about history is what you vaguely remember from school, you never met anybody working in those fields and actually don't even have a passing interest to engage with the subject, then yes, you might actually believe that's how it works.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49645437
https://github.com/nburns/DecorrelationStretch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_humid_period
I guess we'll find out when the next cycle blows the sand away?
A lot of pigments react to oxygen, and the sandy winds must not be kind to this kind stuff so I'm curious.
I know they've had to close Lascaux to the public for example.
What's annoying is that you can't opt out of certain cookies.